Hi all,
I believe I've run across a bug in the LFS Bootscripts. It appears to
me that if the concerned script (I've only tested BLFS scripts, but I
suppose I could kill the sysklog stuff and try it) is not started, and
you issue a
/etc/rc.d/init.d/script status
command, it will report that it is
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 14:37 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> With a cursory glance at the function script, it appears to be some
> malfunction in the getpid section. I really didn't try to follow it,
> but it seems to me that it is doing a PS and reporting the PID of the
> PS process (which has the n
Hi all,
Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
explain, or care to comment a
> Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
> GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
> branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
> files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
> explain, or care to comment
David Fix wrote:
Can you provide a backtrace from GDB for this? :) I'd be happy to take a
look-see. :)
ftp> pwd
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393
393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++)
(gdb) bt
#0 0x08051e
Hi,
Not quiet sure of the correct terminology, but does anyone know if it is
possible o compile/package your distro (like make it into a file that can be
easily installed) something similar to ALFS but will also add anything
extra.
For example, so I create my own LFS distro, and add a WM and some
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393
> 393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++)
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393
> #1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355
> #2 0x
David Fix wrote:
One of them is probably pointing somewhere it shouldn't, and that's the
problem. :) Once I see these, I'll see if there's anything that I can find
out. :)
Looks like 'q' is the culprit:
(gdb) print p
$1 = 0x73550022
(gdb) print q
$2 = 0x1
(gdb) print name
$3 = 0x80598a0
> Looks like 'q' is the culprit:
>
> (gdb) print q
> $2 = 0x1
Looks like it to me too. :) I'm taking a look right now to see if I can't
find the problem. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the a
Hm... I may have been wrong, it said that p was pointing to an invalid
address too... I have NO idea why q is invalid, however.
Can you do a:
-These commands
print c
ptype c
print c->c_name
ptype c->c_name
?
Thanks. :) (I'm compiling gcc-4.01 right now, but it's being compiled on
an PII
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:46:56 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
> GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
> branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
> files used to compi
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
> GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
> branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
> files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
> expla
Hi all,
Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib
to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for
the list.
Anyway, some of the folks who provided arguments why CrackLib should
not be added had very good ideas about LFS, goals, etc.
I tend to
On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:50 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the
package instructions saying that if you would like the system
configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add
--with-libcrack to the configure script.
What say t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the
> package instructions saying that if you would like the system
> configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add
> --with-libcrack to the configure script.
>
> It could probably be done i
S. Anthony Sequeira wrote:
> Since then I have always used the following when searching for a string
> in a ps listing, assuming that the search string is sys:
>
> $ ps -eadf | grep [s]ys
> root 1604 1 0 12:08 ?00:00:00 syslog-ng
>
> here is one that doesn't work:
>
> $ ps -ead
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 21:31 CST:
> What it is reporting is the script itself, which I agree is a bug. You
> don't see ps output because as soon as the script is done it dies. Using
> status you should get a different PID each time. If the daemon is
> running, the PID of the script
Randy McMurchy wrote:
In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the
package instructions saying that if you would like the system
configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add
--with-libcrack to the configure script.
+1
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratc
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Dom wrote:
>
> Not quiet sure of the correct terminology, but does anyone know if it is
> possible o compile/package your distro (like make it into a file that can be
> easily installed) something similar to ALFS but will also add anything
> extra.
You sh
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 08:50:59PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> It could probably be done in one sentence, two max, with a link to
> the BLFS CrackLib instructions.
How's this wording grab you?
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html
--
Archaic
Want contro
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST:
> How's this wording grab you?
Perfect.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
22:57:02 up 127 days, 22:30, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> It reports that the daemon is running with such-and-such PID, but
> that PID really doesn't exist except at the moment the status was
> checked.
IIRC, in the past, we had used the -x switch to pidof and that was
removed in favor of '-o $PPID -o $$'. The -x should defin
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:05:01PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Anyway, there is definately a bug if it's returning the PID of the
> running script, but there is also a problem in your script as you should
> be passing the full path of the binary to statusproc; Well, unless that
> is a symlink in wh
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:05 CST:
> Randy what shell is linked to /bin/sh on your system?
/bin/bash
Should be easy enough to check out. Did it on a hand made script
I have for vixie-cron and it did it on the BLFS xinetd script as
well.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Every time such a topic comes up, there is a huge discussion on what
> is required or not required and finally it turns into a discussion
> about the goals of LFS.
>
> I would like to propose that before adding/removing packages from the
> book, we should formalize what
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST:
> How's this wording grab you?
I feel terrible. I have made a huge mistake. There is another
configuration that must be done for Shadow to use CrackLib. In the
command that creates the /etc/login.defs file, the following addition
to the existing se
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>
>>It reports that the daemon is running with such-and-such PID, but
>>that PID really doesn't exist except at the moment the status was
>>checked.
>
>
> IIRC, in the past, we had used the -x switch to pidof and that was
> removed in favor of '-o $PPID
DJ Lucas wrote:
> status)
> echo "PID of current script is $$"
> echo "Parent PID is $PPID"
> echo "This is the statusproc of sshd"
> statusproc sshd
> echo "This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/sshd"
>
Continued on LFS-Dev...
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:22 CST:
> Randy, my functions are heavily modified ATM. To make sure that this is
> not a different issue, can you run the same test and post back? It
> doesn't matter which script, just use one that is running.
Here is what I inserted:
status)
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:54PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Notice the increment of $$?
Of course it increments. Each incarnation of the script produces a new
non-interactive shell. It doesn't run in the current shell.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating syst
Breaking threading slightly (stupidly removed the email I was about to
reply to).
(Replying to Randy's additional sed requirement)
I'm wondering if perhaps another note just prior to the original sed
would be apropo, or if it should all be placed in the main note. The
latter seems rather disconne
Archaic wrote:
> Of course it increments.
$$ increments 3 times while running the script only once. Maybe I've
just lost myself again.
BTW. My recolection of -x was incorrect. After reading the manpage of
pidof, I realized my error. :-) Reverse what I said. -x is required to
pick up the sc
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:51 CST:
> I'm wondering if perhaps another note just prior to the original sed
> would be apropo, or if it should all be placed in the main note. The
> latter seems rather disconnected to me.
I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reaso
Making a change like that for one package doesn't make sense. If we do
that, why do we need BLFS, just put everything in LFS and say it's optional.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:55 CST:
> I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reasons.
>
> 1) The disconnection you mention
> 2) The command is long. It prolly won't fit on a PDF page so it needs
> to be split with a backslash and then *no* spaces before the
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:04 CST:
> Making a change like that for one package doesn't make sense. If we do
> that, why do we need BLFS, just put everything in LFS and say it's optional.
Jim, please enter the discussion with something worthwhile. How am
I to take you serious whe
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>
>>Of course it increments.
>
>
> $$ increments 3 times while running the script only once. Maybe I've
> just lost myself again.
>
> BTW. My recolection of -x was incorrect. After reading the manpage of
> pidof, I realized my error. :-) Reverse what I sai
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I am tired and not thinking good this
> evening. Of course, the disconnection you mentioned means we need the
> command before the sed later in the instructions when /etc/login.defs
> is created.
>
> Perh
The point is it's not needed, it's in BLFS where it belongs.
I remember you getting upset when we had OpenSSL and OpenSSH in the
cross-lfs book for MIPS architectures, saying it was not needed, and I
made it so it wasn't needed.
If your going to add Cracklib to the notes, you might as well ad
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:44:11PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>
> As soon as the render is done, you can find the "2 notes" example here:
Hrmmm, the line wraps at a most inconvenient place. I guess I need 2
's in the note.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:44 CST:
> As soon as the render is done, you can find the "2 notes" example here:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html
This would work. I would use [command] tags for the word 'sed' and
I would for sure make the '-e
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:46 CST:
> I just don't see any reason for all this hype for a way to check what a
> user uses for a password.
>From a technical standpoint Jim, you are just simply wrong. Exploiting
weak passwords are the single most widely used method to gain access
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:46:56PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> The point is it's not needed, it's in BLFS where it belongs.
Yes, but this way it is known at the time when it would be most
convenient. I personally don't see it as being any different than
linking to a hint and it is a powerful tool
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:54:34AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> This would work. I would use [command] tags for the word 'sed' and
> I would for sure make the '-e ...' stuff in a [literal] tag so that
> it is all on one line though.
Hrmm, literal, eh? I used para, but I'll make a render with
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:57:56AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Exploiting weak passwords are the single most widely used method to
> gain access to a machine.
FWIW, the SANS Top 20 lists weak passwords as the 5th likeliest
vulnerability in Windows, and the 3rd likeliest in Linux. For linux,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
From a technical standpoint Jim, you are just simply wrong. Exploiting
weak passwords are the single most widely used method to gain access to
a machine.
What's needed is a way to enforce a password scheme, passwords greater
than 8 characters, must contain alpha charact
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:01:51AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>
> Hrmm, literal, eh? I used para, but I'll make a render with literal. I'm
> guessing by the name of the tag, that would not be used?
Literal, by itself, doesn't seem to influence line wrapping, but I do
prefer the font used with literal
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:17 CST:
> Not something that checks a word file, I would go for a password scheme
> enforcement solution for shadow or even a replacement of shadow altogether.
Well great, Jim. We are getting somewhere. You obviously agree that a
solution to provide
Okay, give a look:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:25 CST:
> Literal, by itself, doesn't seem to influence line wrapping,
I suppose I shouldn't have made literal, so [literal] :-)
I was more thinking of things like [screen][userinput] type
tags that force stuff to be on one line and be 'literal' (as to
wh
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:33 CST:
> Okay, give a look:
That looks good. The only thing is perhaps:
s/add/insert/ in the sentence. No telling how many folks will try
to add (append) the -e script to the command instead of inserting
where it belongs.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld vers
The only solution right now is to add PAM with this module
http://www.openwall.com/passwdqc.
So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS,
which I'm not sure the community will support.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:32:32AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I was more thinking of things like [screen][userinput] type
> tags that force stuff to be on one line and be 'literal' (as to
> what is encapsulated).
Hrmm. Well if it is deemed to be more accurate using screen tags as
opposed to
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:38 CST:
> That looks good. The only thing is perhaps:
>
> s/add/insert/ in the sentence. No telling how many folks will try
> to add (append) the -e script to the command instead of inserting
> where it belongs.
Better yet, is what if the note was
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:40 CST:
> So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS,
> which I'm not sure the community will support.
It was about 50-50 running with the CrackLib idea, however, some of
the positives about CrackLib were adamant that PAM could
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:42:26AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Better yet, is what if the note was *after* the sed command, and the
> note including a full blown stand-alone sed command to change the
> file if you have CrackLib installed?
This is where I diverge. At that point, I would recom
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:45:21AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I can't see PAM *ever* being LFS material.
And I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, I think PAM is evil. ;)
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linu
58 matches
Mail list logo
